Many have struggled to answer the question: "What is justice?" In The
Republic, Plato strives to do just that, using the conversations between
several characters in order to search for the true meaning of justice
within an individual. What truly makes a person "just?" Through an analysis
of justice at both a political level as well as the individual level, Plato
comes to define justice as that which contains three main factors: wisdom,
courage, and moderation, through his descriptions of the "just" individual
as well as the "just" city, and how the definitions of the two are
intertwined. Adding to this is the problem of Socrates having to remain
faithful to the Socratic method, utilizing arguments which are made with
reason, rather than rhetoric or emotion. One problem with this is in the
three methods he uses to nail the point home, applying three methods which
he would typically not approve of: a lie, an allegory, and then a myth. For
someone who abhors manipulation of an audience, Socrates certainly seems to
do it often in his own responses. In the end, I can come to agree with
Socrates, that this "just" city is very much unattainable, that the only
true value that can be fully practiced is that of moderation, and its
importance to individuals. Through the idea of moderation, Socrates is at
least able to attempt to push society further in the direction of justice,
even if the Utopian "just" city is unattainable.
In defining justice, Plato strayed from a definition bound by a set of
behavioral rules, as many other philosophers have attempted to do. Instead,
Plato defines justice as structure, with political justice residing in the
city, and individual justice residing in the soul. The "just" city is based
on specialization, a structural system composed of three tiers, or classes,
of citizens. In the city of Calli...